Hutchison+v.+Toews

Posted By: Hannah Dyal

 Fred HUTCHISON, a Minor, through His Guardian Ad Litem, Hilde D. Hutchison, Appellant, v. Nathan E. TOEWS, and School District No. 4, Jackson County, Oregon, Respondents.  Court of Appeals of Oregon, Department 2.  Argued and Submitted September 24, 1970.  Decided November 16, 1970

Background: Two students asked their science teacher for Potassium Chlorate to make a homemade bomb. According to the teacher he declined to give them any of the substance and they took it anyway from an unlocked storage room. The students then made the bomb which injured the plaintiff’s hand during explosion.

Decision and Rationale: In the case of //Hutchison v. Toews,// the court determined that the plaintiff, not the teacher, were responsible for the accident which burned Hutchison’s hand. The court stated the plaintiff was aware of the risk involved with making the homemade bomb and jeopardized himself without the teacher’s knowledge.

Impact on Teaching: Teachers need to be aware of the curiosity of students. The storage room of a science classroom should be locked at all times to prevent theft and potentially dangerous situations for both teachers and students. Although the teacher was not charged in this case, teachers everywhere can benefit from the lesson learned in //Hutchison v. Toews.//

Question: Teachers are/are not responsible for the actions of their students at ALL TIMES.

Randall McCarty

 HUTCHISON v. TOEWS Court of Appeals of Oregon, Department 2. Argued and Submitted September 24, 1970. Decided November 16, 1970.

**Background ** Fred Hutchison and Philip Brown, both 15, were participants in making a homemade pipe bomb using potassium chlorate. The two filed a complaint against Phoenix High School chemistry teacher Mr. Toews claiming he supplied them with the potassium chlorate for the pipe bomb which resulted in an explosion injuring Hutchison. Mr. Toews did give the students “some” of the substance but the students stole another form of it later which resulted in the blast and injury. The complaint was amended twice up to two years later. **<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Decision and Rationale ** <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">The court looked into whether or not the substance actually supplied by Mr. Toews, which was in a powder form, was that which caused the injury or the crystalline form that was taken by Brown from an unattended chemistry storage room. Although there was some of the substance supplied by the teacher, which could be questionable as right or wrong, it was not that which exploded negating Mr. Toews responsibility. The court ruled that the responsibility for the injury lied with the boys for being negligent and not displaying proper safety precautions. **<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Implications ** <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Teachers should never supply students with any substance, be it from a classroom or outside of the school environment, especially if the intended purpose is not school sanctioned. Teachers should also exhibit proper caution when using certain chemicals or substances and the storage of them. Although the teacher in this case was not responsible for the injury that occurred, he should have shown more responsibility in denying the boys access to the substance and discouraged any tapering with explosives. Also, if teachers are aware of students engaging in such activity outside of school it would be proper to encourage adult supervision. **<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Question: ** <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Should teachers be held responsible for their influence on students and the actions they take outside of the school? Explain.